Bobbi C. Sternheim
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
102
Very Strong
|
211 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
29
Very Strong
|
34 | |
|
person
CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
|
Business associate |
19
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
70 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
|
Co counsel |
7
|
7 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Laura Menninger
|
Business associate |
6
|
6 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
|
Professional employment |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
ANDREW ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
John M. Leventhal
|
Professional succession |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Laura Menninger
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MARK S. COHEN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeff Pagliuca
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
government counsel
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Co counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Curcio client
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Counsel of record
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Pagliuca
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-12-29 | Jury trial | Jury Trial for the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE,... | New York, N.Y. | View |
| 2021-12-28 | Jury trial | Court proceedings for the jury trial in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2021-12-27 | Jury trial | Jury Trial for the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 20 CR 330 (AJN). | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2021-12-22 | N/A | Jury Trial proceedings in USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell | New York, N.Y. | View |
| 2021-12-21 | Jury trial | Jury trial proceeding in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 1:20-cr-... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2021-12-17 | Legal filing | Document 549 was filed with the court in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-12-15 | N/A | Filing of Document 547 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | New York, NY | View |
| 2021-12-12 | Legal filing | Defense counsel Bobbi C. Sternheim filed a letter with the court regarding witness logistics and ... | United States District Court | View |
| 2021-12-08 | Jury trial | Jury Trial for the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | New York, N.Y. | View |
| 2021-12-07 | Jury trial | Jury trial in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2021-12-03 | Legal filing | Document 521 was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-02 | Jury trial | Jury trial in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, held before Judge Alison... | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2021-12-01 | Jury trial | Jury trial for Ghislaine Maxwell, presided over by Hon. Alison J. Nathan, with legal teams repres... | New York, N.Y. | View |
| 2021-11-29 | Jury trial | The jury trial of Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell,... | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2021-11-29 | Jury trial | The jury trial for the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 1:20-cr-00330-... | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2021-11-24 | N/A | Call referenced between Defense (Sternheim) and Prosecution regarding 'Boies Articles'. | N/A | View |
| 2021-11-23 | Hearing | A court hearing in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, case number 20-cr-3... | New York, N.Y. | View |
| 2021-11-15 | Conference | A court conference was held in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | New York, N.Y. | View |
| 2021-11-08 | N/A | ECF Filing (Electronic Case Filing) | U.S. District Court (Implied) | View |
| 2021-11-08 | N/A | Filing Deadline | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-11-03 | N/A | Filing of Bail Application and Disclosure of Juror Names documents via ECF in U.S. v. Maxwell. | Court (Electronic Filing) | View |
| 2021-11-03 | N/A | ECF filing in U.S. v. Maxwell case | Court | View |
| 2021-10-29 | Court filing | Filing of 'GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702 AND DAUBERT V... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2021-10-29 | Legal filing | Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys filed a motion to preclude law enforcement witnesses from offering ... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2021-10-29 | Legal filing | Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys filed a motion to preclude the introduction of alleged co-conspirat... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
EFTA00029843.pdf
This document is an email chain from March 9, 2021, regarding the legal case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell (20 Cr. 330). Laura Menninger of Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. writes to Judge Nathan to submit a letter detailing Ms. Maxwell's objections to redactions proposed by the government in their Omnibus Response. The email includes several attachments related to these redactions and exhibits.
EFTA00029816.pdf
This document is a legal memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on January 25, 2021, seeking to suppress evidence obtained via subpoena from the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner. The defense argues that the government made false representations to Judge McMahon to bypass a civil protective order and obtain confidential deposition transcripts, alleging collusion between the civil plaintiff's lawyers (Boies Schiller) and federal prosecutors. The document details the history of the civil defamation case, specific deposition questions regarding sexual acts and Epstein, and the procedural history of the protective order modification.
EFTA00029301.pdf
This document is an email thread from October 2021 regarding the case U.S. v. Maxwell. Defense attorney Bobbi Sternheim sends a courtesy copy of an ECF filing (specifically a letter regarding legal mail) to prosecutors at the US Attorney's Office (USANYS) and her co-counsel (Everdell, Menninger, Pagliuca). The email was then forwarded internally within the USANYS office.
EFTA00029294.pdf
This document is an email thread from October 2021 involving Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi Sternheim, and government representatives (including Christian Everdell). Sternheim complains that legal materials (a hard drive and books) sent by the government via FedEx were delivered to the MDC on October 12, 2021, but had not been given to Maxwell as of October 14. The document includes screenshots of FedEx tracking information (Tracking #8166 1429 9130 and #8166 1429 9141) confirming delivery to Brooklyn, NY.
EFTA00029237.pdf
This document is an email signature block or letterhead footer for Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq. It includes contact details (with phone numbers redacted), a Covid-19 notice regarding remote work, and a standard legal confidentiality disclaimer. The document bears the Bates stamp EFTA00029237.
EFTA00029100.pdf
This legal filing is a Reply Memorandum by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, arguing for the suppression of evidence and dismissal of charges based on government misconduct. The defense asserts that prosecutors misled Chief Judge McMahon about the extent of their prior coordination with civil attorneys (Boies Schiller Flexner) to obtain a grand jury subpoena, thereby circumventing a civil protective order. The document details a specific meeting on February 29, 2016, where civil attorneys 'pitched' the prosecution of Maxwell and provided documents, including flight records (though the specific flight data is not listed in this text), which the prosecution later failed to disclose to the judge.
EFTA00028974.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on March 15, 2021, supporting a motion to dismiss counts 1-4 of the superseding indictment. The defense argues that the indictment lacks specificity regarding names, dates, and details of the allegations, preventing Maxwell from preparing an adequate defense. The filing criticizes the government for using vague categories like 'Minor Victims' and 'multiple minor girls' without clarification and cites legal precedents to argue that the lack of specificity violates due process.
EFTA00028968.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed on March 15, 2021, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in the Southern District of New York. The defense argues that Counts 1 and 3 of the Superseding Indictment are multiplicitous (charging the same crime twice based on identical facts) and requests the Court order the government to elect one count to prosecute and dismiss the other prior to trial to avoid jury prejudice. The filing contends that the government has failed to prove the existence of two distinct conspiracies.
EFTA00028929.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, requesting the suppression of evidence obtained from a government subpoena to Boies Schiller and dismissal of counts five and six. It includes a Table of Contents, Table of Authorities citing various legal cases and rules, and a Table of Exhibits detailing communications and notes related to the case from 2016 to 2021, many involving AUSAs and individuals like Peter Skinner, Stan Pottinger, Brad Edwards, and Sigrid McCawley. The memorandum argues that the government misled the court and that the evidence should be suppressed due to due process violations.
EFTA00028903.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on March 15, 2021, supporting a motion to dismiss counts one through four of her indictment as time-barred. The defense argues that the 2003 Amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which extended the statute of limitations, cannot be applied retroactively because Congress explicitly rejected a retroactivity provision. Additionally, the defense contends that the Mann Act offenses charged (enticement to travel and transportation of a minor) do not 'necessarily entail' the sexual abuse of a child, and thus the extended statute of limitations under § 3283 does not apply.
EFTA00028880.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on March 15, 2021, supporting her motion to dismiss the indictment based on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) Jeffrey Epstein signed in Florida. Maxwell argues that the NPA's clause immunizing 'potential co-conspirators of Epstein' explicitly covers her and bars the current prosecution in the Southern District of New York. The defense contends that the government's attempt to limit the NPA geographically (to Florida) or to specific crimes is contradicted by the plain text of the agreement and legal precedent regarding plea agreements.
EFTA00028701.pdf
This document is an internal email chain within the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) dated June 2, 2021. It forwards an automated Notice of Docket Activity from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals indicating that Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail was denied. A USANYS staff member comments 'Awesome work!' regarding the court's decision.
EFTA00028584.pdf
This document is an email from an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) to Judge Nathan's chambers regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Dated May 22, 2021, the email submits the Government's opposition to the defense's supplemental pretrial motions. The sender notes they are emailing the document because the electronic filing system prevents them from filing an opposition brief before the original defense motion appears on the public docket.
EFTA00028183.pdf
This document is a chain of emails between the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) and defense counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell (Laura Menninger) from March 2021. The correspondence concerns the scheduling of a review of 'highly confidential images' and physical evidence at 500 Pearl Street, as well as the production of indices listing items seized by the FBI from Jeffrey Epstein's residences in New York and the Virgin Islands in 2019. The prosecutor clarifies which items are indexed in spreadsheets versus search warrant returns and coordinates a phone call to discuss these matters.
EFTA00028100.pdf
An email chain from October 2021 involving Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi C. Sternheim, demanding immediate confirmation of the status of legal mail at the MDC. Sternheim notes that USPO tracking shows mail available for pickup that the facility has not retrieved, and threatens court action if not resolved. The chain includes a signature block for Isabel Maxwell, acting as a paralegal for the Law Offices of Leah Saffian.
EFTA00027749.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 14-15, 2021, involving the U.S. Attorney's Office (USANYS) and defense counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell. Following a letter filed by defense attorney Bobbi Sternheim regarding legal mail at the MDC, Judge Nathan ordered the prosecution to respond by 5 PM on October 15. The emails depict the prosecution team scrambling to draft a response, coordinating with the BOP and a contact named Sophia at the MDC, and expressing frustration regarding the tight deadlines imposed by Judge Nathan.
EFTA00027563.pdf
This document is a Notice of Docket Activity from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, dated April 15, 2021. It notifies recipients of a filing in the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Case No. 21-58). The filing is a Certificate of Service related to a motion by an unnamed appellate counsel to withdraw/be relieved from representing Ghislaine Maxwell.
EFTA00026926.pdf
This document is an email chain from April 2021 between defense attorney Bobbi Sternheim and redacted government officials regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement. Sternheim requests that Maxwell be allowed legal materials while waiting in the cell block, noting she was held idle for over three hours. The government responds that they do not object but that the US Marshals require a court order.
EFTA00026872.pdf
This document contains a series of email exchanges between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (led by Laura Menninger) and the US Attorney's Office regarding the logistics of reviewing discovery evidence in March and April 2021. The correspondence details disputes over the location of the review (FBI Bronx Warehouse vs. 500 Pearl Street courthouse), specifically concerning 'bulky' items such as massage tables, plaster busts, and framed art which the government refused to transport. Significant discussion focuses on the protocols for reviewing 'Highly Confidential' materials, including approximately 2,100 nude or obscene electronic images seized from Jeffrey Epstein's devices, which required specific viewing conditions on non-networked laptops due to their nature.
EFTA00026477.pdf
This document is an email notification from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit regarding case 21-58, United States of America v. Maxwell. Dated January 26, 2021, it notifies recipients that an attorney (name redacted) has been added for the Appellant, Ghislaine Maxwell. The notice was mailed to Assistant U.S. Attorney Christian Romeyn Everdell and Ms. Bobbi C. Sternheim, among others.
EFTA00026465.pdf
This document contains the signature block and legal disclaimer for Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq. It includes contact details (partially redacted), a notice regarding office closure due to Covid-19, and standard confidentiality warnings. Bobbi Sternheim is known for representing Ghislaine Maxwell.
EFTA00026464.pdf
This document is an email from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim dated November 24, 2020, regarding the case 'U.S. v. Maxwell'. The email circulates a courtesy copy of an ECF filing titled 'Maxwell_Reply_to_90-day_conditions_ltr.pdf' to a group of attorneys including Mark S. Cohen, Christian Everdell, Laura Menninger, and Jeff Pagliuca.
EFTA00026460.pdf
This document represents an email thread between defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim and an official at MDC Brooklyn regarding the confinement status of Ghislaine Maxwell on November 19, 2020. The official informs Sternheim that Maxwell was placed in quarantine (not the SHU) for 14 days after close contact with a staff member who tested positive for COVID-19, resulting in the suspension of in-person legal visits.
EFTA00026458.pdf
This document is an email chain from November 2020 involving Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi C. Sternheim. Sternheim writes to unidentified recipients (likely prison officials) seeking confirmation and explanation regarding Maxwell receiving a Covid-19 nasal swab and being moved to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) for a 14-day quarantine, expressing concern over scheduled legal calls and visits.
EFTA00025282.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 2021 detailing complaints by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney, Bobbi Sternheim, regarding conditions at the MDC. Sternheim alleges 'foul play' or a 'cover-up' regarding legal mail that went missing and reappeared with USPS markings despite being placed in an internal mailbox. Additional complaints include inadequate space and COVID safety during legal visits, denial of requests to see the Warden, and issues with food (receiving meat while on a vegetarian diet) and electricity.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-07-07 | Paid | Bobbi C. Sternheim | U.S. District Cou... | $505.00 | Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee for Case 20CR330... | View |
Unknown
Standard legal disclaimer and Covid-19 office closure notice found in an email signature/footer.
Foregoing motion with exhibit
Bobbi C. Sternheim served a legal motion via email to Maurene Comey (maurene.comey@usdoj.gov) and Andrew Rohrbach (andrew.rohrbach@usdoj.gov).
Foregoing motion with exhibit
Bobbi C. Sternheim served a legal motion via U.S. mail (postage prepaid) to Ghislaine Maxwell at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.
Foregoing motion with exhibit
Bobbi C. Sternheim served a legal motion via email to Hon. John M. Leventhal (judgeleventhal@aidalalaw.com).
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
A letter opposing the motion filed by counsel for Sarah Ransome and Elizabeth Stein to give oral victim impact statements at Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing hearing. The letter argues that neither individual qualifies as a statutory crime victim under the CVRA.
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim informs Judge Nathan that her client, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been unjustifiably placed on suicide watch by the MDC, preventing her from preparing for her sentencing. Sternheim states Maxwell is not suicidal and warns that she will move for an adjournment if the situation persists.
No Subject
This is the signature page of a letter or legal filing from Bobbi C. Sternheim, indicating that attachments are included and that Counsel of Record have been copied.
Challenge to standing under CVRA
No preview available
Sentencing Procedures / Victim Statements
Request regarding the manner of sentencing and opposition to impact statements from individuals not identified as victims in the charged offenses.
Defense counsel letter regarding sealing of certain docum...
No preview available
Defense counsel writes regarding sealing of certain docum...
Letter dated 6/17/2022 entered on 6/21/2022.
2-day extension to file sentencing submission
Request for extension (Denied by court on 05/11/2022).
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Request for a two-day extension to file sentencing submission due to attorney travel.
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Requesting a stay of ruling pending review of a new interview given by Juror 50 to Paramount Plus.
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
A letter arguing for a new trial for Ghislaine Maxwell based on the assertion that Juror 50 gave false answers on a juror questionnaire regarding his own past sexual abuse, which should have disqualified him from the jury.
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
A letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel requesting a proffer from Juror 50's counsel to explain the basis for the juror's assertion of the Fifth Amendment, in light of the juror's public statements and the government's consideration of immunity.
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Request regarding Juror 50's assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege and government immunity.
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
A letter from the defense proposing limited redactions to an attached Opinion and Order, in response to a Court Order (Dkt. 610) from the same day.
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
A letter from the defense proposing limited redactions to an attached Opinion and Order in response to a Court Order (Dkt. 610).
Response to Dkt. 605
Letter in response to Order 605.
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Discussion regarding proposed redactions to documents related to Juror 50's conduct and motion for a new trial.
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
A letter submitting documents under seal with proposed redactions concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The redactions are intended to protect the integrity of an inquiry into the conduct of Juror 50 during the voir dire process.
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
A letter submitting documents under seal with proposed redactions concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The redactions are intended to protect the integrity of an inquiry into the conduct of Juror 50 during the voir dire process.
Letter in Response to Dkt. 596
Letter in Response to Dkt. 596
Response to Dkt. 596
Letter in response to a previous docket entry.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity